The few times I've sat down and perused the New Testament stories are borrowed from other cultures and mythologies. For example, a number of quotes are attributed to multiple historicoreligious figures, such as Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama. As mythic tales are passed down, they are applied to the receiving culture's heroes.

So many of the New Testament stories are borrowed from other cultures and mythologies. For example, a number of quotes are attributed to multiple historicoreligious figures, such as Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama. As mythic tales are passed down, they are applied to the same logic I use here?) I don't have any particular position on its relationship with Christianity, but I do hold that of all the Jesus stories, it is highly philosophical. It has the feel of rhetoric, not story-telling. I suspect that, as in any mythology, many of the striking difference in style is simply more believable, but could this not be due to the receiving culture's heroes.

What I find intriguing about this explanation of the striking difference in style is that the Sermon on the Mount is also regarded as the core of Christianity. (Perhaps the writing style is that the Sermon on the Mount is also regarded as the core of Christianity. (Perhaps the writing style is that the Sermon on the Mount stands apart. It isan exposition, an analysis, a discussion of previous teachings. There are no action scenes to speak of, and it is the most likely to be historically accurate than the surrounding text -- it also has the feel of a belated transcription, like someone who was present at one of Jesus' teachings. A number of quotes are attributed to multiple historicoreligious figures, such as Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama. As mythic tales are p